quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Whether or not it is technically lying, would you consider it ethical? Admirable? A little dodgy? If a person who was not a politician (SO, friend) did something similar, would you consider them honest?

Of course not, but we don't hold politicians to the same standard. I think Romney is particularly slippery and morphable in this regard, so I still think he's fair game for criticism relative to others, but I think it's unfair to criticize him in absolute terms for a behavior that most politicians are guilty of. From where I sit, Mitt's distinction from other politicians is not that he's dishonest but that in many cases he's more dishonest.

That is certainly true. Me saying that Romney is lying about this doesn't in any way imply that other politicians are not lying about other things.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |

posted July 17, 201206:44 PM
"When people give different answers to the same factual question"

That's the assessment that seems obtuse. In the different contexts (whether he had sufficient legal presence, or whether he was actually supervising the company) the same words comprise distinct factual questions.

And my saying that Romney isn't lying about this doesn't mean that he might not be lying about something else. But here, some folks seem to be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |

posted July 17, 201206:58 PM
"It could be that I should be using a different word.

What word would you suggest I use."

Spinning, perhaps. He's interpreting the facts one way for one question, and interpreting them differently for a slightly different question.

Do we call someone a liar if he calls himself a resident of one state for purposes of his divorce, and a resident of another state for purposes of his taxes and drivers' license? Not unless you're planning to vote against him. Because they are different legal standards.

Does the legal definition of CEO, as far as saying that's who you are on a document, require you to be involved in the more decisionmaking than Romney clearly was while working 100+ hour weeks in Utah? If so, then charge him.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |

posted July 17, 201207:27 PM
This is a surprisingly hot debate; I would have thought the conclusions were fairly simple. Did Mitt play loosely with the facts for political gain? Yes. Was it beyond the standard that is essentially required of politicians these days? No.

The relevant question is; how does Romney *feel* about outsourcing specifically, and corporate power in general? And its pretty clear that he supports them both unequivocally. His website is explicit about *reducing* regulations on corporations across the board, and lowering the marginal tax rate, capital gains, corporate tax rates, etc.

In that context, people should take a very close look at Bain Capital; its how Romney thinks business should work, and as president, he wants to facilitate exactly what they do. At a time when corporate profits are at an all time high, and wages an all time low, Romney's solution is to accelerate this disparity. Whether he tells politician lies like everyone else (he does) is moot; his explicit plan for America is a corporatist hell that will make the Gilded Age look like a hippie commune.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |

Captain: Na Na Na, I'm not listening, I'm not listening! I started my leave of absence at 11 (right after I increased speed) so I am not responsible! And even though I am still being paid as Captain, and still sign the log, and if I told the crew to stop, they would certainly listen to me, I am not responsible! I have my fingers in my ears so I have no knowledge of the iceberg, and I never intended to hit it, so I can't be guilty!

Seriously Pete, I don't think I ever talked about guilt, just responsibility. If I said guilt, I retract it and replace it with responsibility. All the facts and reasoning are the same.

But you never answered the question - if you can have a pure figurehead, with no responsibility, and no expectation of knowledge of company activities or plans, signing SEC forms, what is the point of the signature?

Also, has Romney ever said outright he was unaware of the activities after 1999, or has he just said he is not responsible? All I've read said "no role in decision making" not "no knowledge of decisions".

And you may be right, "His deal to lend his name and connections to forming deals doesn't make him morally responsible for new strategies that emerged when he no longer had decisionmaking power."

Except he had decisionmaking power. He had the titles and the clout to stop the bad things if he wanted. He just decided not to use it. And it is not clear that the strategies emerged only after he left. And he is not morally responsible for such strategies he was not involved with, but he is responsible for not objecting when he found out what was done in his name.

If you can address these points, you will have made a case. Any one of them is cause for questioning Romney's integrity.

-There is no evidence he was ignorant of the bad actions on the part of the company he founded, ran, and owned, that still carried his name on the paperwork.-He could have stopped them, but did not.-He signed things saying he was in control, but later claimed he was not.

I am asking reasonable questions. It is not a witch hunt, or a star chamber. I am convicting no one. I am asking questions about Romney. Look at what I wrote, and tell me what is star chamber material. I'll wait to see what it is.
Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by velcro:Also, has Romney ever said outright he was unaware of the activities after 1999, or has he just said he is not responsible? All I've read said "no role in decision making" not "no knowledge of decisions".

What's telling is that he's never weighed in on whether they were good decisions or not. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt, and just ask him straight out: "what do you think oaf Bain outsourcing all those American jobs." *That* is a question where an honest answer will cost him the election.

quote: And you may be right, "His deal to lend his name and connections to forming deals doesn't make him morally responsible for new strategies that emerged when he no longer had decisionmaking power."

Except he had decisionmaking power. He had the titles and the clout to stop the bad things if he wanted. He just decided not to use it. And it is not clear that the strategies emerged only after he left. And he is not morally responsible for such strategies he was not involved with, but he is responsible for not objecting when he found out what was done in his name.

Actually, whether he was responsible for them or not is itself somewhat irrelevant. We have an economic system where, had he not made those decisions, someone else would have, and out-competed Bain. Romney's problem is that he sees those decisions as healthy market activity. The responsible answer (that he will never give) is that they were necessary, but that the system needs to be reformed so that they aren't any longer. That maybe we should rethink competing with third-world nations over who can exploit more workers and resources, and look at developing sustainable local sources of goods. Not that Obama is offering much in this regard either...
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |

posted July 17, 201208:13 PM
"Except he had decisionmaking power. He had the titles and the clout to stop the bad things if he wanted. He just decided not to use it."

That's a misleading statement, because it's doubtful, given the facts that anyone who followed the Utah Olympic story, that he had the *knowledge* of the bad things that were occurring. I was living in Utah at the time, and given the sheetstorm that he was facing here, it seems obvious and self-evident that he could not have continued to run Bain as the primary decisionmaker.

I note the absence of Matt and Scifi from this discussion -- both non-LDS democrats who are AFAIK extremely unlikely to support Romney. But as Utahns, they would remember the Olympic mess. I'm curious if they would find it likely that Romney was carefully supervising Bain through that time.

quote:Romney's problem is that he sees those decisions as healthy market activity. The responsible answer (that he will never give) is that they were necessary, but that the system needs to be reformed so that they aren't any longer.

Yes. If Romney sees what Bain did in 1999+ as healthy market activity, then that's something that voters should be informed about.

And since his name was on the company, this whole brooha gives us the opportunity to confront Romney about that question. Whether he will continue to tolerate the corporate cannibals who are biting the fingers off the invisible hand.

And to ask Obama as well, in the debates, that if he's really about hope and change, what does he plan to do about exportation of jobs and corporate cannibalism?

It's an important opportunity for our country.

And how each person meets this opportunity, will distinguish the real liberals from the lefty politicos.

quote:Originally posted by Adam Masterman:The relevant question is; how does Romney *feel* about outsourcing specifically, and corporate power in general?

I agree. That's the relevant question. The rest is election season diddling.

Interesting. I don't actually care about Romney's views on outsourcing. I do care about Romney playing free and easy about the facts of his relationship with Bain.

If he had enough of a relationship with Bain, that the relationship let him be considered a resident of Massachusetts so that he could run for office there, then how can he say that he had no relationship with Bain after 1999.

quote:Originally posted by Pete at Home: "It could be that I should be using a different word.

What word would you suggest I use."

Spinning, perhaps. He's interpreting the facts one way for one question, and interpreting them differently for a slightly different question.

Do we call someone a liar if he calls himself a resident of one state for purposes of his divorce, and a resident of another state for purposes of his taxes and drivers' license? Not unless you're planning to vote against him. Because they are different legal standards.

Does the legal definition of CEO, as far as saying that's who you are on a document, require you to be involved in the more decisionmaking than Romney clearly was while working 100+ hour weeks in Utah? If so, then charge him.

Spinning is when you provide different interpretations of the same facts. He is trying to provide two sets of facts.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Adam Masterman:The relevant question is; how does Romney *feel* about outsourcing specifically, and corporate power in general?

I agree. That's the relevant question. The rest is election season diddling.

Interesting. I don't actually care about Romney's views on outsourcing. I do care about Romney playing free and easy about the facts of his relationship with Bain.

That's odd, considering how much impact the first issue has on everyone's lives, and how obvious and inconsequential the answer to the latter question is:

Romney took a third leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 when he became the head of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics.[50][51] The decision caused turmoil at Bain Capital, with a power struggle ensuing, several partners threatening to leave, and a prospect of eight-figure lawsuits being filed.[52] Romney was worried that the firm might be destroyed, but the crisis ebbed and he departed as planned.[52]According to an interview Romney gave to the Boston Herald in 1999, Romney said he would stay on part-time at Bain, but would leave running day-to-day operations to Bain's executive committee.[53] A management committee reportedly took on this role.[54] During his leave of absence, Romney continued to be listed in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission[55] as "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President".[56][57] The SEC filings reflected the legal reality[54] and the ownership interest in the Bain Capital management company and some say they did not necessarily reflect managerial functions at the time.[22] In practice, former Bain partners have claimed that Romney's attention was occupied by his Olympics position.[58][54] Discussions over the final terms of Romney's departure dragged on during this time, with Romney reportedly negotiating for the best deal he could get.[54]Although he had left open the possibility of returning to Bain after the Olympics, Romney made his crossover to politics permanent with an announcement in August 2001.[50] His separation from the firm was finalized in 2002.[59]

He took a leave of absence in '99, and officially quit in 2002. And likely did next to nothing with Bain during the interim. All of which is largely irrelevant to the question of whether he should be tied to Bain practices during that period. No one has suggested (and its absurdly unlikely) that the company made any substantive changes in the way they did business during that period. Likewise, Romney has never suggested that he has even the slightest criticism of anything Bain has done, ever. So, unless Bain did something that could lead to prosecutions, the question is moot. Its Romney's baby, and a good example of how he thinks business should be done. In a sense, its his life's work. I don't care if he was in a coma from '99 to '02; there's no distancing himself from that kind of corporate practice.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |

posted July 17, 201209:34 PM
"No one has suggested (and its absurdly unlikely) that the company made any substantive changes in the way they did business during that period."

Then why is everyone arguing over the time period? I thought that was based on the assumption that the boom in corporate cannibalism occurred after he went to Utah.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |

posted July 17, 201209:36 PM
"Likewise, Romney has never suggested that he has even the slightest criticism of anything Bain has done, ever."

His distancing himself implies discomfort. At least he's aware that voters find it disgusting. And he should be pressed on that issue. Not on the BS "dishonesty" angle.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Pete at Home: "Likewise, Romney has never suggested that he has even the slightest criticism of anything Bain has done, ever."

His distancing himself implies discomfort. At least he's aware that voters find it disgusting. And he should be pressed on that issue. Not on the BS "dishonesty" angle.

Well, he did use the word "quit" referring to '99. I don't find it untoward to ask questions when SEC documents show up listing him as owner, president, CEO, and janitor through 2002. But yes, the problem with Romney is this.
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Pete at Home:I note the absence of Matt and Scifi from this discussion -- both non-LDS democrats who are AFAIK extremely unlikely to support Romney. But as Utahns, they would remember the Olympic mess. I'm curious if they would find it likely that Romney was carefully supervising Bain through that time.

I'm technically LDS (although I don't believe Joseph Smith was anything but a guy whose lies took on a life of their own), and not a Democrat, although I'm more likely to vote Democrat than Republican in Utah, just to dilute the unanimity a bit.

When the Olympics scandal hit I was about 21 and about as miserable and self-obsessed as possible, and not paying attention. I don't think I even really knew what Mitt Romney's role was until he started playing national politics.

I think it's pretty clear that Mitt is going to say whatever he can currently convince himself is both truthy-enough and advantageous. His flip flops are legendary; why should his account of himself, his qualifications, his ethics, be any more grounded than his position on abortion?

His involvement with Bain post-1999 is pretty moot. Big companies outsource labor; they do it all the time. Hardly a pol doesn't have some kind of profiteering blood on his hands.

He's never done anything economically beneficial, unless you count keeping Utah from throwing away a lot of tourist dollars in 2002. His company exploited, it didn't build.

Whether he's a lying liar who lied about lying in service of Bain, or a lying liar who lied only to himself in some deep part of his subconscious hardly matters.

If he was currently spouting policy that made sense to me, I'd be willing to consider voting for him. He's not really worse than any of the rest in terms of trustworthiness. But he's not likely to break his promises sufficiently to achieve an outcome in line with the promises that would resonate with me, so meh.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |

posted July 17, 201210:40 PM
Out of interest, does anyone outside of Utah -- or, even, besides Pete -- care about the Utah Olympics? I notice that he seems to consider it a Big Deal, whereas I noticed it as, well, a bit of a blip.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |

posted July 17, 201211:00 PM
Also, if the person who was officially and legally listed as CEO did not have ultimate responsibility for the actions of Bain, who did?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |

quote: Romney took a third leave of absence from Bain Capital in February 1999 when he became the head of the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the 2002 Winter Olympics.[50][51] The decision caused turmoil at Bain Capital, with a power struggle ensuing, several partners threatening to leave, and a prospect of eight-figure lawsuits being filed.[52] Romney was worried that the firm might be destroyed, but the crisis ebbed and he departed as planned.[52]According to an interview Romney gave to the Boston Herald in 1999, Romney said he would stay on part-time at Bain, but would leave running day-to-day operations to Bain's executive committee.[53] A management committee reportedly took on this role.[54] During his leave of absence, Romney continued to be listed in filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission[55] as "sole shareholder, sole director, Chief Executive Officer and President".[56][57] The SEC filings reflected the legal reality[54] and the ownership interest in the Bain Capital management company and some say they did not necessarily reflect managerial functions at the time.[22] In practice, former Bain partners have claimed that Romney's attention was occupied by his Olympics position.[58][54] Discussions over the final terms of Romney's departure dragged on during this time, with Romney reportedly negotiating for the best deal he could get.[54]Although he had left open the possibility of returning to Bain after the Olympics, Romney made his crossover to politics permanent with an announcement in August 2001.[50] His separation from the firm was finalized in 2002.[59]

If this is a factual description of events then it seems to me the only people that have a legitimate gripe our the people of Mass.

Both statements could be "spun" as accurate.

The business practices of Bain may be considered "normal" but when Romney promises to use his business experiences at Bain to create jobs they certainly become questionable. That is what I see as the central issue.

The GOP attacks Obama on jobs but with the economic mess he inherited would McCain have done better? Maybe, Maybe not. With the crisis in Europe I am not sure that Obama or Romney will be able to totally turn things around in another four years. However I am not sure I want to see what this country will look like if the "Bain model" is used.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |

posted July 18, 201201:53 AM
This is much simpler than we've made it. The question is whether Romney is a truthful person who takes responsibility for things over which he has control. The answer is that he is not truthful and he does not take responsibility. If he did he'd have told one story about his departure from Bain and he would accept a share of accountability for what Bain did while he was CEO, Chairman and most importantly, the sole stockholder. If you think a company would go against the wishes of its only shareholder you're kidding yourself. Everything Bain did until the day he retroactively retired is on his head. He should man up and accept it instead of endlessly spinning, dodging and weaving.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by Pete at Home:I note the absence of Matt and Scifi from this discussion -- both non-LDS democrats who are AFAIK extremely unlikely to support Romney. But as Utahns, they would remember the Olympic mess. I'm curious if they would find it likely that Romney was carefully supervising Bain through that time.

I'm technically LDS (although I don't believe Joseph Smith was anything but a guy whose lies took on a life of their own), and not a Democrat, although I'm more likely to vote Democrat than Republican in Utah, just to dilute the unanimity a bit.

Apologies for misstating your affiliation and position. For myself, as of this week, I am *not* technically LDS, but I still believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet and a witness of Jesus Christ, and that if he lied, that it was like Abraham did, a very few lies to dangerous men, with the intent to save the lives of himself, his family, and his friends. But this much we have in common: even when I was Republican, I did tend to vote Democrat in Utah, for the same reason you did, to dilute the unanimity a bit. Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |

quote: it's doubtful, given the facts that anyone who followed the Utah Olympic story, that he had the *knowledge* of the bad things that were occurring.

Knowlege could consist of reading one paragraph from board minutes he was being paid $100K to read.

During the time he was spending "100+ hours a week", his lawyer said

quote:“He succeeded in that three-year period in restoring confidence in the Olympic Games, closing that disastrous deficit and staging one of the most successful Olympic Games ever to occur on US soil,” said Peter L. Ebb from Ropes & Gray.

“Now while all that was going on, very much in the public eye, what happened to his private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And the answer is they continued unabated just as they had.”

So I think he had time to find out one or two small details about the company he owned, founded, ran, signed paperwork for, had most of his worldly assets invested in, planned to use as a qualification for running for public office, was getting a $100K salary from, etc.

Pete wrote

quote:Oh? for someone who tosses around the word "liar" so freely, you had better be able to link to us where Romney claimed that he had "no relationship" with Bain after 1999.

Is this close enough?

quote: “since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.”

posted July 18, 201209:13 AM
Hmmm, is it legal for anyone to be the CEO, Chairman of the Board and President of a corporation and have no knowledge of the activities of the company and no responsibility or accountability for anything the company does? I also wonder what it means that he signed the SEC docs and that's legal under the circumstances.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |

Oh? for someone who tosses around the word "liar" so freely, you had better be able to link to us where Romney claimed that he had "no relationship" with Bain after 1999.

Velcro beat me to it

The statement from his lawyer about his involvement with Bain ending in 1999.

quote:Mr. Romney retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way.

But in 2002 when he needed to be from Massachusetts in order to run for governor, his lawyer made the following statement:

quote:He succeeded in that three-year period in restoring confidence in the Olympic Games, closing that disastrous deficit and staging one of the most successful Olympic Games ever to occur on US soil. Now while all that was going on, very much in the public eye, what happened to his private and public ties to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts? And the answer is they continued unabated just as they had.

quote:I note the absence of Matt and Scifi from this discussion -- both non-LDS democrats who are AFAIK extremely unlikely to support Romney. But as Utahns, they would remember the Olympic mess. I'm curious if they would find it likely that Romney was carefully supervising Bain through that time.

I'm not registered with any party and find the official machinery of each repulsive, but yeah I swing liberal.

I don't remember being overly concerned with the Olympics at the time. I remember it being a mess and that Mitt came in to fix things, but that's about it. I was a recent Utah immigrant with a young family so I had other priorities and little geographic pride at the time. My personal investment didn't peak until the games were approaching, long after the scandals had passed.

As far as Bain-gate (are we saying that yet?) goes, I'm not too concerned with what he was actually up to during those years. I am interested in how he handles being pressed on how he explains what should be a fairly superficial issue and how he's been unable to wipe off the shady-sounding veneer over that issue despite a blitz of interviews designed to do just that.

There are echoes of Birtherism here but the provenance of documents is not at question - people are just asking Romney to reconcile apparently contradictory facts in a clear, plausible way and, for some reason, he doesn't chosen to do so. Instead he's used embarrassing sound bites like "retroactive retirement" that come across as doublespeak. Eventually Obama did put up the birth certificate, after the opposition had gone totally nutso. Maybe that's Romney's plan too?

quote:Originally posted by Adam Masterman:[qb] The relevant question is; how does Romney *feel* about outsourcing specifically, and corporate power in general?

I agree. That's the relevant question. The rest is election season diddling.

Interesting. I don't actually care about Romney's views on outsourcing. I do care about Romney playing free and easy about the facts of his relationship with Bain.

That's odd, considering how much impact the first issue has on everyone's lives, and how obvious and inconsequential the answer to the latter question is

Except that outsourcing isn't unique to Bain, and is good business practice in the current setting where the American standard of living and cheap transportation and communication make paying American's to do work that could be done elsewhere a bad choice.

I'm not bother at all by Romney being involved in outsourcing. I am bother by Romney lying about when he was involved with Bain. In part because lying is bad, and in part because it shows him to be more concerned with how others view him or what will benefit him the most, than with doing what he thinks is right.

If he wants to say he left in 1999, that's fine. If he wants to say he left in 2002, that's fine too. But he needs to pick a story and stick with it.
Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |

quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex: This is much simpler than we've made it. The question is whether Romney is a truthful person who takes responsibility for things over which he has control. The answer is that he is not truthful and he does not take responsibility. If he did he'd have told one story about his departure from Bain and he would accept a share of accountability for what Bain did while he was CEO, Chairman and most importantly, the sole stockholder. If you think a company would go against the wishes of its only shareholder you're kidding yourself. Everything Bain did until the day he retroactively retired is on his head. He should man up and accept it instead of endlessly spinning, dodging and weaving.